DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative asserts arguments to address the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 (see Remarks, pg. 8-12). The Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are not directed to a grouping of abstract ideas but to a technological improvement to a gaming system (see Remarks, pg. 8). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are directed to “a new technological mechanism for generating random numbers that can be used by an electronic gaming machine (instead of or in addition to a conventional random number generator) to determine an outcome of a game and an award based on that outcome (see Remarks, pg. 8-10). Moreover, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims relate to a historical horse race gaming system that do not recite a series of rules and/or instructions to manage an outcome and award for a historical horse race game plays but rather to a determination of a scaled number that can be employed in place of or as randomly determined number to determine such an outcome and/or award (see Remarks, pg. 8-11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a series of instructions for managing an outcome by (a) determining a numeric value; (b) scale the numeric value to a range to determine a scaled number; (c) case transmission of the scaled number as a randomly generated number to determine and display an outcome and award amount for the historical horse race game play. Stated differently, the claims recite a series of rules and/or instructions to manage a historical horse race game by utilizing a scaled mathematical relationship to determine an outcome and award for the game. The additional elements are found to merely instructions to apply the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., transmission of the scaled number to an electronic gaming machine; display an outcome and an award amount), and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (e.g., a historical horse race database) which are not indicative of (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the claims are not found to recite result-oriented functional language and lacks the technical details as to how a technological improvement to a random number generator over prior art systems. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recites limitations such as:
1. A historical horse race gaming system comprising:
a historical horse race database;
a historical horse race central server comprising a processor and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
select a plurality of historical horse races from a historical horse race database for the historical horse race game play;
employ an automatic horse order selection function to determine player horse order selections for each of the plurality of historical horse races – certain method of organizing human activity, mental process and/or mathematical relationship;
determine, based on the actual horse order finishes for each of the plurality of historical horse races, any correct player horse order selections for each of the plurality of historical horse races;
determine, based on the correct player horse order selections for each of the plurality of historical horse races, a numeric value – certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
scale the numeric value to a range to determine a scaled number;--certain method of organizing human activity and/or mathematical relationship; and
cause a transmission of the scaled number to an electronic gaming machine such that the electric gaming machine can use the scaled number as a randomly generated number to determine and display an outcome and an award amount for the historical horse race game play. -certain method of organizing human activity
The limitations as indicated above, are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a series of rules and/or instructions to manage an outcome and award for a historical horse race game play. Certain of the limitations are found to recite a mental process because they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that similar to concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind. Furthermore, some of the limitations recite a mathematical relationship that the courts have indicated to be abstract. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “a historical horse race central server comprising a processor and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:”, “select a plurality of historical horse races from a historical horse race database for a historical horse race game play;” and “cause a transmission of the scaled number to an electronic gaming machine such that the electric gaming machine can” amount to instructions which invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as: “a historical horse race database” “a historical horse race central server” comprising “a processor” and “a memory device” recite highly-generalized computer components that are recited to perform their highly-generalized result-oriented functions that amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea similar to Alice v. CLS (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). A review of the Specification indicates that the database, server, and other computer components are highly-generalized and commercially available components or are not shown in sufficient detail to shown an improvement to computer-functionality (see Specification, 0038, 0043-0044). Moreover, Vancura discloses that it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application that a conventional gaming system comprises a processor and/or memory (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements the additional elements are not found to amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claims 10 and 15, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim 1 above. Independent Claims 10 and 15, differ in that Claim 10 recites an electronic gaming machine as opposed a “central server” and Claim 15 is directed to the system “wherein the race set comprises player horse order selections” as opposed to an “automatic horse order selection function” of Claim 1. However, these differences do not alter the analysis above because they further recite at least one of a further limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas, invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, independent Claims 10 and 15 are found to recite a grouping of abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-20 have been analyzed and were found to further recite at least one of a further limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715